Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Campbell v. Superior Court, 479 P.2d 685.

167 citing documents.

Kunzler v. Miller 744 P.2d 671 Ariz. 1987
Hiveley v. Superior Court 744 P.2d 673 Ariz. 1987
Kunzler v. Miller 744 P.2d 671 Ariz. 1987
Kunzler v. Pima County Superior Court 744 P.2d 669 Ariz. 1987
Hiveley v. Superior Court 744 P.2d 673 Ariz. 1987
At this time the person is being “deprived of his freedom of action in [a] significant way.”
State v. Superior Court of Arizona 742 P.2d 286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
State v. Superior Court of Arizona 742 P.2d 286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
our supreme court held that the privilege against self-incrimination was not violated by the provision of Arizona’s implied consent law which permits the introduction of evidence of a refusal to submit to chemical tests required by that statute to determine blood alcohol content.
Noland v. State, Dept. of Transp. 728 P.2d 685 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Noland v. State, Dept. of Transp. 728 P.2d 685 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. City Court of Tucson 723 P.2d 728 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. City Court of Tucson 723 P.2d 728 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
it has been the law in Arizona that a person is not entitled to the assistance of an attorney prior to deciding *380 whether to submit to a blood alcohol test.
State v. DeGier 387 N.W.2d 227 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Superior Court of Pima County 721 P.2d 149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Superior Court of Pima County 721 P.2d 149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
916 , 74 L.Ed.2d 748 (1983)
State v. Holland 711 P.2d 592 Ariz. 1985
State v. Holland 711 P.2d 592 Ariz. 1985
the state argues that defendant had no right to consult his attorney concerning whether to submit to a breathalyzer test.
State v. Holland 711 P.2d 602 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Holland 711 P.2d 602 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
In the comments on Rule 6.1(a), , the purpose of that part of the rule at issue is explained: “The second sentence is intended to serve as a directive to law enforcement officials that defense attorneys, their staff, and experts should be given full access to clients, subject only to reasonable time and place limitations require
Mongan v. Pima County Superior Court 715 P.2d 764 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Mongan v. Pima County Superior Court 715 P.2d 764 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Loughran v. SUPERIOR COURT OF MARICOPA 699 P.2d 1287 Ariz. 1985
Loughran v. SUPERIOR COURT OF MARICOPA 699 P.2d 1287 Ariz. 1985
Willis v. State 701 P.2d 10 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Willis v. State 701 P.2d 10 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
White v. State 695 P.2d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
White v. State 695 P.2d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Sweitzer v. Department of Transportation, Motor Vehicle Division 683 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Sweitzer v. Department of Transportation, Motor Vehicle Division 683 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
our supreme court stated: [A] refusal to submit to the test occurs where the conduct of the arrested motorist is such that a reasonable person in the officer’s position would be justified in believing that such motorist was capable of refusal and manifested an unwillingness to submit to the test
State v. Waicelunas 672 P.2d 968 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Waicelunas 672 P.2d 968 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Gaunt v. Motor Vehicle Div., Dept. of Transp. 666 P.2d 524 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Gaunt v. Motor Vehicle Div., Dept. of Transp. 666 P.2d 524 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
the Arizona Supreme Court held, inter alia, that a motorist arrested for driving while intoxicated does not have a right to counsel in deciding whether to take the intoxication test.
Knoblich v. City Court 657 P.2d 906 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Knoblich v. City Court 657 P.2d 906 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
408 , 1 L.Ed.2d 448 (1957); Schmerber v. State of California, supra; , See generally Annot.
Traylor v. Thorneycroft 657 P.2d 895 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Traylor v. Thorneycroft 657 P.2d 895 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Kellum v. THORNEYCROFT, ETC. 649 P.2d 994 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Kellum v. THORNEYCROFT, ETC. 649 P.2d 994 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
McNutt v. Superior Court of State of Ariz. 648 P.2d 122 Ariz. 1982
McNutt v. Superior Court of State of Ariz. 648 P.2d 122 Ariz. 1982
State v. Curiel 634 P.2d 988 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State v. Curiel 634 P.2d 988 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
1826 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966)
State v. Asbury 602 P.2d 838 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
State v. Asbury 602 P.2d 838 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
1826 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966); , the use of his refusal was impermissible because the state failed to comply with rule 15.2(a), which provides: Physical Evidence.
State Ex Rel. Dean v. CITY COURT, ETC. 598 P.2d 1008 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
State Ex Rel. Dean v. CITY COURT, ETC. 598 P.2d 1008 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
State v. Alvarado 591 P.2d 973 Ariz. 1979
State v. Alvarado 591 P.2d 973 Ariz. 1979
Since defendant’s confessions were also not obtained in violation of his Miranda rights, , and were not the fruit of an unlawful arrest, they were properly admitted into evidence.
State v. Burns 591 P.2d 563 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
State v. Burns 591 P.2d 563 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Campbell v. State, Department of Revenue, Division of Motor Vehicles, 176 Colo.